Well, but my friends are smart people and I ought to give you guys the benefit of the doubt. So I hereby announce, with some trepidation, that I am lifting the ban and deregulating Singularity discussion in our house. If you absolutely must talk about it, you may do so henceforth without fear of incurring my wrath and/or being escorted off the premises.
You can thank/blame Ben Rosenbaum for changing my mind. Ben is, let's be honest, the main reason I had to make the rule in the first place, because given the slightest provocation, he will go on about the goddamn Singularity. (In fact he and Cory Doctorow just co-wrote a novella set in a post-Singularity world, currently available here as a podcast.) However, what with Ben being brilliant and all, he's starting to convince me there are things worth saying on the subject. So okay. Bring on the techno-future.
We've even broached the subject in email, after I mentioned the above-linked webcomic to him, and it has not destroyed my will to live! A sign of progress:
**
I saw that comic, and it is kinda funny, and in a sense very similar to what I said at the Feminism and the Singularity panel... but on the other hand, it's a bit oversimplifying. I think most of the good Singularity stories by most of those nerdcore boys -- Charlie, Cory, etc., even Vinge -- are actually just as much about the left-behind non-upgraded humans as the divinely enhanced ones, and the disadvantaged often have the story's sympathies. Indeed, the lesson of a lot of those stories (which the comic tries to reserve for itself) is that no matter how hot you think you are, you get left behind sooner or later; Manfred Macx is awfully obsolete and at the mercy of his cat by the end of Accelerando, for instance. The only one I think is really gung-ho booster about it all and sure of "living in the future" is Egan.
Amusingly, the more "omg it will change everything" dewy-eyed you are about the S, the more the exigencies of writing *fiction* (and thus foregrounding risk and suffering) force you to write about those who get excluded from the apparent paradise... or else to make it not so paradisical.
I actually think much of the apparent "woo it'll be so cool to be uploaded" bravado is a thin veneer over the dread of considering what it means that consciousness might be computable.
Ben
**
Your observations on trends in discussion of Singularity stuff are far more informed than my own, and I like the way you talk about it (IN EMAIL, NOT IN PERSON, ROSENBAUM, DON'T TAKE THIS AS ENCOURAGEMENT). The way you describe it, it's actually a really interesting subject.
I got cornered once at a party by a Transhumanist who had arranged to freeze his head when he died, so he could wake up in the glorious future. I tried to get him to talk about his vision of what this would mean to him, why he was doing it, but all he could really articulate was that he wanted to affect the future, he wanted to be a player in the future. I got the strong sense that he pictured himself waking up and, by dint of his special status as an anachronism, becoming an important and specially valued person. Like a magical get-out-of-dying ticket that walks you right through death to the other side, where you emerge in a blaze of innate power and popularity. At the time, I was struck by the thought that he was sublimating a biological urge to procreate (send some of yourself down the line to touch the future, become an important person in your sphere of existence). Simplistic, I know, but he seemed like a lonely guy, and there was clearly a lot of contempt for the flesh at work there; even more clearly, the contempt was covering a desperate social insecurity combined with self-aggrandizement, so it was all hard to take very seriously.
Anyway, I was bitching about it later to Tim Powers and he said he bets all those guys get defrosted in the future and their brains are so primitive and retrograde that they all end up being used to power lawn mowers, or something.
Which is an image that makes me smile every time I think of it. Little defrosted heads poking out of futuristic appliances.
xo
Karen
**
Excellent thought about the sublimation. Haddayr and I were talking about my story with Cory, True Names, and whether you'd want to be a filter in Beebe -- this is a kind of person, in case you haven't read the story, who dies when they reproduce. If a filter stays a spinster, he can live forever, if he has a child, he dies.
We were at first both like "so a clever filter can live forever!" Then it occurred to us to think as parents and we were like "of course, actually personally, I'd prefer to spawn and die..."
I want one of those lawnmowers!
**
Hee. Well, and also there are many ways to leave a legacy and usefully affect the world/future besides spawning. But they usually involve touching other people's lives, either personally, artistically, through innovative creations, etc. Part of why I couldn't hear that guy's Transhumanist ranting except through a psychological filter: he struck me as a very isolated person who hadn't managed to actually make or do much that would be remembered after he was gone, and had focused on this instead.
Let it be a warning: this is what SF does to you! You get to a point of Publish or Perish, and then the inevitable next step is Publish or Perish Except For Your Very Special Frozen Brain Which Will Live On Forever.
**
I think it would be great if his *plan* was to become a lawnmower. That could be kind of ennobling.
Ben
**
It's honest work.
Plus, an optimistic thought that in the future there will still be enough healthy grass left to require mowing!
**
That the grass will ALSO be sentient makes the whole thing rather dark. Though maybe the grass likes it.
Ben
**
Once again, the petty dreams of a mediocre mind result in a fascist grab for domination over the downtrodden masses.
K
**
You know I love it when you talk dirty.
**
You're just excited at the thought of all that sentient grass getting plowed. One hopes consensually; there is a kind of symbiosis in that relationship, though the power dynamic is complicated.
**
It's true, it's a fetish of mine.
The power dynamic hinges crucially on whether the mower is gas, manual, or electric.
You'd be surprised how many sentient post-Singularity mowers are manual!
Ben
**
That's because in the future, gas and electricity are hard to come by (I hope that phrasing didn't get you too worked up). The most abundant post-singularity energy source? Defrosted brainz.
K
**
April 22 2008, 13:50:45 UTC 4 years ago
April 22 2008, 13:53:30 UTC 4 years ago
April 22 2008, 15:04:12 UTC 4 years ago
Which, since mostly I agree with you on the subject, is really enjoyable. You'd be LUCKY to power a lawnmower! That might mean the lawnmower might not KILL YOU!
April 22 2008, 16:52:27 UTC 4 years ago
... but I wonder how much the era was part of it? I remember there was a great sense of general philosophical entitlement among the self-appointed technological intelligentsia, and of course nobody felt particularly bothered by trivial concerns such as funding for crazy projects.
I wonder if the Singularity obsession with inexorable technological advancement and its consequences wasn't sort of symbiotically entwined with the heady-yet-anxious house-of-cards feeling of 2001. A bubble of that magnitude can only keep existing as long as a sufficiency of people believe that they live in extraordinary times.
April 22 2008, 17:41:30 UTC 4 years ago
Whereas now we're... what? Is it too obvious to mark the zeitgeist with milestones of recent disasters and economic decay? I'll say this: at the moment, I think the hive mind is less sanguine about the future.
April 22 2008, 17:58:48 UTC 4 years ago
April 22 2008, 18:19:44 UTC 4 years ago
April 23 2008, 17:49:42 UTC 4 years ago
Accelerando, also, just struck me as not weird enough -- it was pretty much the sort of book you'd expect someone who'd read a lot of Slashdot and late Bruce Sterling to write, and it dialed the Singularity so far back, compared to say Blood Music or Marooned in Realtime, that it just wasn't all that singular any more. Kurzweil, too.
The thing with the Rapture for Nerds is that -- like the Rapture for Born-Agains -- it's just so unimaginative. Life will go on forever, just like now but happier, and we will always be us, and all the bad people will have gone away. Defining the ineffable down until it's something everyone can be comfortable with and geeks/fundies can be smug about.
April 23 2008, 17:50:31 UTC 4 years ago
April 24 2008, 12:23:58 UTC 4 years ago
April 24 2008, 12:51:30 UTC 4 years ago
April 24 2008, 13:41:55 UTC 4 years ago
April 24 2008, 13:57:16 UTC 4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
April 22 2008, 17:56:01 UTC 4 years ago
April 22 2008, 18:03:21 UTC 4 years ago
April 22 2008, 18:33:47 UTC 4 years ago
the only one I think is really gung-ho booster about it all and sure of "living in the future" is Egan.
I don't think Egan is gung-ho about it at all. A lot of his fiction reads like horror because he is willing to examine all the unpleasant implications of uploading. And he has pretty explicitly mocked the idea of the Singularity (for example, in "Singleton").
In novels like Diaspora, Egan has written about a future where uploading is commonplace, but he doesn't suggest that it will lead to superhuman intelligence. The characters in Diaspora are not fundamentally smarter than humans; they're alien to us without being smarter than we are. (In contrast to the way posthumans are depicted in a lot of SF, supposedly being vastly smarter than we are but speaking and acting just like we do.)
April 24 2008, 13:37:18 UTC 4 years ago
Let us define, for the purposes of this conversation, that wooly and fuzzy term "the Singularity", S for short, as "a profound and irreversible change in human existence brought about by the impact of consciousness/intelligence-as-computatio
One issue is how profound people think such a change is. This can range from Vinge (who thinks that immediately after S, we will be as ants, nay, microbes before the mighty posthumans) to Stross (who plays it Vinge's way in some short stories, but also talks about Singularities as multiple technological ratchets in mode of production, so that after S we will be as citified agriculturalists to tribal hunter-gatherers, rather than as microbes to gods) to Egan (who, as Ted says, has people millions of years from now, in Diaspora, who are in cybernetic form but who are otherwise not all that different, in mode of existence and effective intelligence, than their embodied forebears). Let us call this the "deep" to "shallow" axis.
A second issue is how soon to expect S, ranging from Kurzweill and Vinge, who honestly seem think the only problems in uploading minds will be quickly solved by Moore's law, and thus confidently set a date of 2030 or so, to Stross and Doctorow who tend to push this out by at least a few decades, to Egan, who sets S and posthumanity far in the future. Let us call this "fast" vs "slow". (A related issue is, whenever it comes, how quickly it gets "deep", this is called in the literature "hard-takeoff" vs "soft-takeoff")
A third issue is how likely you think this is to happen. This is hard to tell from fiction, since a given author decides to set a story in a milieu not because it is the most likely option, but because it works for the story. Still, you can tell from extratextual proclamations and clues, and from preponderance of setting, that some authors (Vinge, Kurzweil) think it's DAMN STRAIGHT going to happen, others (Stross, Doctorow) are betting that way, others think it's just one of a number of interesting things that might happen, and others (like, I don't know, Le Guin?) think it's all just foo-fah and rocket cars in every garage and never gonna happen. Let us call this the "believing"/"skeptical"/"unbelieving" axis. (In this context it is worth mentioning Moles' Dictum about everyone writing far-future fiction now either having to have a Singularity happen, or a reason why it didn't).
And a fourth issue is how nice they expect the result to be. Here, interestingly, we range from Vinge, who at least purports to be scared stiff of the consequences, to Egan, who in Diaspora, portrays the post-S society of Diaspora as an extremely happy place, and implies strongly that this beatific state is a result of having encoded consciousnesses and thus gotten rid, not only of pain, death, and bodily injury, but of many other social problems by making them amenable to debugging. Once we are uploaded, it becomes a matter of math to disprove religion, root out bad psychological patterns, and generally dispense with the sorts of things Egan disapproves of. We can call this the "utopian"/"heterotopian"/"dystopian" axis. (Heterotopian after Delany, of course)
Thus, Ted, I think we're arguing at cross purposes. I think that Egan is the only real unabashed utopian of the bunch. The fact that he's also a shallow-singularity, slow-singularity skeptic is not incompatible with this.
I, for the record, am a moderate Singularity skeptic, and as far as the S goes, I am most drawn to write about a medium-deep, slow, heterotopian Singularity, largely because that's what seems most plausible to me.
April 24 2008, 16:26:23 UTC 4 years ago
April 24 2008, 18:25:12 UTC 4 years ago
Actually, I'd say this caveat applies to all four of the issues, rather than just the likelihood issue. And obviously what any of us conclude about a writer's beliefs based on reading their fiction is pretty subjective. I get the feeling that Egan prefers to write stories about extremely rational characters, whether they're uploaded or not. This doesn't mean that there aren't other types of people living elsewhere in the same fictional universe. Also note that Diaspora is only one of his novels.
(As a side note, I recently saw a comment by Charlie Stross where he said that readers interested in what he really believes is going to happen should put down Accelerando and pick up Halting State.)
(In this context it is worth mentioning Moles' Dictum about everyone writing far-future fiction now either having to have a Singularity happen, or a reason why it didn't).
I hadn't heard this described as "Moles' Dictum." I remember seeing this assertion on Usenet some years back, I think in a post by Lawrence Person, but I can't find it. Anyway, can you clarify: is this intended as descriptive or prescriptive? If it's prescriptive (which is the way I remember the post on Usenet), then it's claiming that the Singularity is highly likely. If it's descriptive, it makes no such claim.
April 25 2008, 09:57:04 UTC 4 years ago
I first heard Moles's Dictum from Moles, and I don't recall the where. I don't think it was meant to be based on the actual plausibility of the Singularity, but to describe the fashions of a certain period in speculative fiction -- it was prescriptive, but in the sense of responding to reader expectations, not of futurism. In other words, the Dictum argues that we have entered a period of speculative fiction where -- due presumably to the success of extropian fiction and nonfiction -- a sufficiently large number of readers' default assumption about future technological growth is that, resources permitting, it will grow exponentially rather than linearly, changing human being fundamentally.
It doesn't mean that the Singularity is actually likely. It just means that while 1960s readers were prepared to accept humans hundreds of years in the future travelling the galaxy in their original bodies, with computers significantly dumber than they were, living 90-year lifespans and communicating by calling each other up and talking, without blinking, that if you want to write that scenario now and treat it as rigorous extrapolation rather than neo-pulp camp, you have to explain the mechanism whereby commonly predicted changes (superhuman cybernetic intelligence, uploading the mind, and so on) didn't<(i> happen.
At least that's how I understand it.
April 26 2008, 04:01:15 UTC 4 years ago
I think the fad may be passing, though.
April 26 2008, 08:02:12 UTC 4 years ago
Doesn't this argue against your point? It shows that the attitude is independent of uploading, and not a consequence of it.
April 26 2008, 12:39:10 UTC 4 years ago
However I would say that Egan likes creating such rational societies, and that while in "Border Guards" he justifies them with simple abundance, in "Diaspora" he goes out of his way to justify them as a result of an instantiated-as-software lifestyle. But perhaps you are right that we shouldn't take this seriously as an account of his expectations of an uploaded future, but simply assume that he uses whatever materials are available to justify the society he wants to depict.
However, taking this attitude does kinda make me like "Diaspora" less.
March 10 2010, 03:02:08 UTC 2 years ago
I like these axes.
I've suggested "Cognitive Science Revolution" as an alternative to "the Singularity", for focusing less on "superduper intelligence we can't understaaaand" and more on the consequences of understanding intelligence, ranging from "the minimal human IQ is 140, also you can pick your child's genetic personality, or change your own through drugs and surgery" to strong AI and uploads where mature intelligences can be copied, designed, or edited. One could argue that we already have weak super-intelligence in high-functioning corporations or the scientific community and such, but as this put it, "the Singularity represents a new us".
Anonymous
April 23 2008, 08:15:19 UTC 4 years ago
But what if you get name brains?
The notion of Trotsky and Stalin's little frozen brains poking out of lawnmowers, grumbling about brainy materialism and the workers' paradise, crabbing at each other at the garage all night until the other lawnmowers throw them out, because dang it, frozen heads need sleep......except no one can open the door, b/c no one has arms, so they're left waiting 'til morning to beg the slightly bigger brains pushing them for individual storage. This is granted, but only to the best mulchers.
Meanwhile, the Schwarzenegger mower is telling everybody about the great arms he *used* to have, and they're all like whatever, man, just mow.